Request: Match p-l-y in 1756 document

[Joel S. Berson]

To add another argument for "parliamentary" -- a correspondent has
pointed out that on the previous page to the "p-l-y" captains and
continuing to the same page (pp. 468-469) there appears:

"pray, are there no captains, who gallantly distinguished themselves
in the last war [who are] now unemployed [etc.] why so? Sir Oliver!
why? because they have no p-l-y [469] connections; have nothing but
their personal merit to recommend them".

I now wonder if the "p-l-y" captains was deliberately intended by the
author to suggest *both* "parliamentary" and "paltry", which his
reader would understand from the following "flourish" and "broadside"
that they make.

Joel

At 12/6/2010 02:41 PM, Garson O'Toole wrote:
>Joel and Doug: Thank you very much for your thoughtful responses to my
>question. Special thanks for carefully examining the document in toto
>to search for other censored words that are thematically related. The
>arguments offered for both paltry and parliamentary are valuable I
>think.
>Garson
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org